The House Republicans in the state Legislature have announced a transportation plan (link here, with coverage here and here).
As far as election-oriented plans go it works just fine, especially its focus on neglected roadways such as Highway 2. Yet, talk of a tunnel to replace the Viaduct - regardless of the controversial financing questions - is exceptionally difficult to take seriously after how vigorously Seattle already voted that option down and given the long-standing concern with cost overruns for such a project.
Likewise, even with the good news that WSDOT was belatedly prodded by Governor Gregoire into producing a plan that replaces the 520 bridge faster and with lower cost, the uncompleted wildcard remains unsolved: how exactly to pay for it.
The implementation of that newer plan still requires finalization of when tolling on 520 would begin, how much it would cost, and whether to include a concurrent toll on I-90. Given the frequent indecisiveness of elected officials on these topics in recent years and the generally restive mood of the public there seems little reason for optimism these problems can be addressed successfully anywhere in the near future.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 05, 2008 07:34 AM | Email ThisThe timing isn't the best. A late session press release just doesn't cut it among people who take these things seriously.
The $6 billion "no new taxes" plan puts the House GOP on the side of reducing, if not eliminating, the $750 million to $1 billion budget reserve a whole lot of people think is important to avoid dramatic budget cuts or tax increases next year.
So while it sounds good, it really is a NO SALE, even among most GOP legislators. The proposal would be more credible if the House GOP also indicated that they'd cut from the state budget to make up for a hefty portion of the $6 billion that comes from the general state budget.
Posted by: redflag on March 5, 2008 08:09 AMThanks, duffer, for the inflation we are seeing and the recession we are heading into. If you had allowed the threat of drilling in ANWAR to go forward, gas prices would be much lower and inflation would still be in check.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, the Rs will not take advantage of the Ds failed energy policy. And it is guaranteed to get worse before it gets better.
Posted by: swatter on March 5, 2008 08:09 AMI hope Haugen enjoys the nice drive to Camano Island that the 82 million for 532 is buying her.
Posted by: Rob Nix on March 5, 2008 08:27 AMMy put: More lanes, less light rail, no tolls, better bus service, utilize existing rail right-of-ways, etc.
Be careful, because several questions are loaded: e.g. Do you want light rail to continue to Redmond after we have eliminated car lanes across I90 to Bellevue? Do you want to pay an extra $125 in sales tax, or an extra $100 in sales tax? etc. etc.
I made use of those text boxes in my response as well, and left all of the loaded questions blank.
Posted by: Palouse on March 5, 2008 10:16 AMRemember what happened after the pro-gas tax fanatics worked us over? Post after post about how badly we needed to screw ourselves... the more ignorant bought into it... and we get the start of a series of gas tax increases at a time when gas is the most expensive in this nation's history.
And what's the first thing that happens AFTER the tax passes? Why, they whack the project list a mere 31%.
I can't wait to see how this turns out.
Posted by: Hinton on March 5, 2008 10:21 AMWe hear the argument all the time about how much state money needs to be spent on the Seattle viaduct, yet we allow the locals to hold the project hostage.
I think that if we are going to subsidize Seattle's transporation projects then they give up their disproportionate right to say how it's going to be done.
I also think that while Seattle voters are arguing about what to do, we can redirect those funds into projects that are equally or more important...like US2 safety.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on March 5, 2008 10:22 AMMost people don't read political blogs, so I doubt it passed because of that. But the TV ads were no doubt effective.
Posted by: FreedomLover on March 5, 2008 01:22 PMDo you want to pay for a new 520 bridge by:
A) A $7 toll each time you cross
B) Another large increase in gas taxes
C) Actually implementing the recommendations that the State Auditor has already given to WSDOT, which would pay for it nicely
We really should pound this point home every chance we get.
Then, found out that $300 billion of that savings maybe isn't in more efficient government spending after all, but something defined (unlike seven of the eight audits) as "economic impact to citizens, businesses and the environment".
I'm thinking, having not yet read the 150 page audit in question, that this $300 billion might NOT be available to spend on 520.
The $318.7 million isn't chump change though - those are real dollars.
Posted by: BA on March 5, 2008 03:28 PMI have now read enough of the $3b audit savings to know that the savings are about 1/2 in more productive time not stuck in traffic, and 1/2 in more nebulous savings in environmental and other costs.
To gain these societal saving though - will take additional public spending beyond what can be shifted in existing transportation budgets.
I love these soundbites - kind of like the one a last week about the portion of your home value attributable to regulations...the trick is to never actually read this stuff, they always disapoint.
Guess we still can't get something for nothing.
Posted by: BA on March 5, 2008 08:36 PM